Literature DB >> 9116392

A longitudinal study of supine lateral DXA of the lumbar spine: a comparison with posteroanterior spine, hip and total-body DXA.

G M Blake1, R J Herd, I Fogelman.   

Abstract

We report a study to assess whether supine lateral dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans of the lumbar spine provide better data for monitoring response to treatment than alternative measurement sites such as the posteroanterior (PA) spine, hip and total body. The study population was 152 women enrolled in a placebo-controlled clinical trial of cyclical etidronate therapy. All subjects were 1-10 years after the menopause with bone mineral density (BMD) between 0 and -2 SD of age-matched normal women. Paired PA and lateral spine, left hip and total-body DXA scans were performed at baseline, 1 year and 2 years on a Hologic QDR-2000. One hundred and thirty-one subjects completed the study. Mean percentage change from baseline at 2 years in the treated (n = 61) and control (n = 70) groups was calculated for vertebral body, width-adjusted (WA) vertebral body, mid-vertebral body and WA mid-vertebral body BMD measurement on the lateral scans and compared with the percentage changes in PA spine, femoral neck, trochanter, Ward's triangle and total-body BMD. The long-term precision for each BMD measurement site was obtained by linear regression analysis in subjects taking placebo. Overall treatment effect, defined as the difference in the percentage change in BMD in the two treatment groups at 2 years, was divided by long-term precision to give an index of the ability of each site to monitor response to treatment. Results (and standard errors) normalized to the ratio of treatment effect/ precision for PA spine BMD were as follows: PA spine, 1.00; vertebral body, 0.89 (0.14); WA vertebral body, 0.78 (0.14); mid-vertebral body, 0.65 (0.14); WA mid-vertebral body, 0.60 (0.13); femoral neck, 0.35 (0.15); trochanter, 0.45 (0.15); Ward's triangle, 0.59 (0.22); total body, 0.52 (0.19). Although treatment effect was larger for lateral than for PA spine BMD, this advantage was offset by the greater precision errors. PA spine BMD remains the optimum measurement for longitudinal studies in recently postmenopausal women.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1996        PMID: 9116392     DOI: 10.1007/bf01629579

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Osteoporos Int        ISSN: 0937-941X            Impact factor:   4.507


  19 in total

1.  Inhomogeneity in body fat distribution may result in inaccuracy in the measurement of vertebral bone mass.

Authors:  C Formica; M L Loro; V Gilsanz; E Seeman
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  1995-10       Impact factor: 6.741

2.  Planning a longitudinal study. II. Frequency of measurement and study duration.

Authors:  J J Schlesselman
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1973-09

3.  Quality assurance for bone densitometry research studies: concept and impact.

Authors:  C C Glüer; K G Faulkner; M J Estilo; K Engelke; J Rosin; H K Genant
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1993-09       Impact factor: 4.507

4.  Diagnostic value of estimated volumetric bone mineral density of the lumbar spine in osteoporosis.

Authors:  N F Peel; R Eastell
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  1994-03       Impact factor: 6.741

5.  Dual X-ray absorptiometry of the lumbar spine: the precision of paired anteroposterior/lateral studies.

Authors:  G M Blake; T Jagathesan; R J Herd; I Fogelman
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  1994-07       Impact factor: 3.039

6.  Anteroposterior versus lateral bone mineral density of spine assessed by dual X-ray absorptiometry.

Authors:  L Del Rio; F Pons; M Huguet; F J Setoain; J Setoain
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med       Date:  1995-05

7.  Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry of the spine--decubitus lateral versus anteroposterior projection in osteoporotic women: comparison to single energy X-ray absorptiometry of the forearm.

Authors:  K Bjarnason; L Nilas; C Hassager; C Christiansen
Journal:  Bone       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 4.398

8.  Osteoporosis: diagnosis with lateral and posteroanterior dual x-ray absorptiometry compared with quantitative CT.

Authors:  G Guglielmi; S K Grimston; K C Fischer; R Pacifici
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1994-09       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Postmenopausal screening for osteopenia.

Authors:  P J Ryan; G M Blake; I Fogelman
Journal:  Br J Rheumatol       Date:  1992-12

10.  An investigation of spinal bone mineral density measured laterally: a normal range for UK women.

Authors:  J Lilley; S Eyre; B Walters; D A Heath; P J Mountford
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  1994-02       Impact factor: 3.039

View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  The role of DXA bone density scans in the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis.

Authors:  Glen M Blake; Ignac Fogelman
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 2.401

Review 2.  Bone health and back pain: what do we know and where should we go?

Authors:  A M Briggs; L M Straker; J D Wark
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2008-08-21       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 3.  Advances in bone imaging for osteoporosis.

Authors:  Judith E Adams
Journal:  Nat Rev Endocrinol       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 43.330

4.  The effect of long-term bisphosphonate therapy on trabecular bone strength and microcrack density.

Authors:  A Jin; J Cobb; U Hansen; R Bhattacharya; C Reinhard; N Vo; R Atwood; J Li; A Karunaratne; C Wiles; R Abel
Journal:  Bone Joint Res       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 5.853

5.  Contribution of the vertebral posterior elements in anterior-posterior DXA spine scans in young subjects.

Authors:  David C Lee; Patricia P Campbell; Vicente Gilsanz; Tishya Al Wren
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 6.741

Review 6.  Vertebral Imaging in the Diagnosis of Osteoporosis: a Clinician's Perspective.

Authors:  Sharon H Chou; Meryl S LeBoff
Journal:  Curr Osteoporos Rep       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 5.163

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.